This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings decided between November 2025 and September 2026 in which Section 16(1) — the foundational input tax credit eligibility provision under applicable GST enactments — appeared as a cited or contested section. The collection spans the Allahabad, Madras, Bombay, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Karnataka High Courts and covers writ petitions challenging assessment orders, ITC-blocking notices, and conviction orders under statutes that share the section-number "16(1)" across different legislative frameworks. It is intended as a research index for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law-firm researchers who need a consolidated starting point before retrieving and reading full judgments.

Disclaimer: This page is a structured research index, not legal or tax advice. Every entry is a summary drawn from publicly available source previews. Readers must verify outcomes against full judgments, check for subsequent stays or reversals, and consult qualified legal counsel before taking any position.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 16(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its state-level mirrors such as the TNGST Act, 2017, KGST Act, and MGST Act) lays down the foundational entitlement of a registered person to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business, subject to the conditions and restrictions prescribed elsewhere in Section 16 and the rules made thereunder. This provision is distinct from — and must be read alongside — the conditions in sub-sections 16(2), 16(3), and 16(4), which impose further requirements such as possession of a valid tax invoice, actual receipt of goods or services, payment of tax by the supplier to the government, and filing of returns within prescribed time limits. The cases indexed below engage Section 16(1) in varied procedural postures: as the primary entitlement being disputed in assessment or ITC-blocking proceedings, as a benchmark against which the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) is tested, and — in several non-GST matters — as a section-number coincidence under other statutes (the U.P. Gangsters Act, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the Rajasthan agricultural marketing framework) where the numeric label "16(1)" appears in an entirely different legislative context.

The 12 rulings

1. Navi Mohmad vs State Of U.P. And Another

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 3 September 2026
Sections engaged: 14(1), 15(1), 16(1), 3(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 5078 of 2026) against an order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Moradabad, in a reference made under Section 16(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Per the source preview, the reference concerned orders passed under Section 14(1) of the same Act to attach the appellant's property, as well as an order dated 10.01.2024 dismissing the appellant's representation or objection. The section-number "16(1)" in this matter pertains to the Gangsters Act, not a GST or income-tax provision; the substantive outcome is not specified in the available source.

2. Tvl Mettca Impex Llp vs Office Of The Assistant Cornrnissioner

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 28 August 2026
Sections engaged: 107, 16(1), 49(4), 74A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 28507 of 2026) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice dated 16.06.2026 that blocked the Input Tax Credit ledger of the petitioner in relation to alleged supplies received from Vetrivel Traders, issued under Rule 86-A of the TNGST Rules, 2017. Per the source preview, proceedings under Section 74A of the applicable GST enactments had been initiated and those proceedings had culminated in an order; the petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the blocking notice and direct restoration of the ITC ledger. The substantive outcome of the writ petition is not specified in the available source.

3. Akash Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. And Another

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 14(1), 16(1), 15
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal was preferred under Section 18 of the Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act before the Allahabad High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 1513 of 2026) seeking to quash the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge Gangster Act, Sonebhadra, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 155 of 2021 under Section 16(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, as well as the order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, under Section 14(1) of the same Act. Per the source preview, the appellant's counsel submitted that the impugned orders are against facts. The section-number "16(1)" here pertains to the Gangsters Act; the substantive outcome is not specified in the available source.

4. Shri Nath Lohiya vs State Of Rajasthan

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Date: 22 June 2026
Sections engaged: 16(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was heard as D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 957/2022 arising from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 798/2011 before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. Per the source preview, the matter involved the appellant — present in person — and multiple respondents including the State of Rajasthan (Ministry of Agriculture), the Agriculture Marketing Board, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, and various private parties. The source preview does not provide sufficient detail to identify the substantive ground engaged by Section 16(1) in this specific legislative context or the outcome of the appeal.

5. K.Pitchaipandi vs The Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 73, 17(5), 16(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P(MD) No. 15387 of 2026) was filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 12.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, referenced as GSTIN Ref No. 33CIYPP0255J1ZS/2021-22 dated 29.12.2025. Per the source preview, the assessment was made rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2025 on the ground that the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided, and the petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order as without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The substantive outcome is not specified in the available source.

6. Tvl.Sri Hari Krishna Product vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73, 17(5), 16(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P(MD) No. 12163 of 2026) was filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order in GSTIN 33ANVPS2378HIZD/2021-2022 dated 17.11.2025 passed by the first respondent, along with the consequential rectification order in Form GST DRC 08 Ref. No. ZD3311252974690 dated 17.11.2025 passed by the second respondent, on the ground that they are without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. Per the source preview, the matter was listed before the court on 22.04.2026; the substantive outcome is not specified in the available source.

7. Abnco Vie Win Ent Private Limited vs Union Of India

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 2 April 2026
Sections engaged: 16(2)(c), 16(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (Writ Petition No. 4204 of 2024) was filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying, among other reliefs, for a declaration that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and MGST Act is null, void, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and further that the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 16(1) of the CGST and MGST Act. Per the source preview, the petitioner's constitutional challenge was directed specifically at Section 16(2)(c) as being inconsistent with the foundational ITC entitlement in Section 16(1). The substantive outcome is not specified in the available source.

8. R Ramesh vs The State Tax Officer Inspection-I

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 26 March 2026
Sections engaged: 16(1), 17, 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 11566 of 2026) was filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226 praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 bearing Reference Number 33ABPPR3315K2ZE/2022-23, and to direct the respondent to conduct fresh proceedings according to law. Per the source preview, the defect schedule in the impugned order included a liability described as "Tax payable on wrong availment of ITC contravention to the section 16(1) & 17 of the act" with CGST and SGST amounts of Rs. 7,527 each, alongside interest and penalty entries. The substantive outcome of the writ petition is not specified in the available source.

9. Rajkala Enterprises Private Limited vs Union Of India

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 18 March 2026
Sections engaged: 16(1), 16(2), 16(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (Writ Petition No. 1955 of 2024) was filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying, among other reliefs, for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned ex parte orders dated 30.03.2022 and 20.09.2022 as being without jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in violation of principles of natural justice. Per the source preview, the petition engaged Sections 16(1), 16(2), and 16(4) of the applicable GST enactment in the context of ITC-related proceedings. The substantive outcome is not specified in the available source.

10. M/S Acco Logistics And Forwarding vs Assistant Commissioner Of Cgst And

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 5 February 2026
Sections engaged: 16(1), 16(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (R/Special Civil Application No. 14415 of 2025, Neutral Citation C/SCA/14415/2025) was taken up for final hearing at the Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad, with the consent of both parties, as it involved a short issue. Per the source preview, the petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order; the matter engaged Sections 16(1) and 16(3) of the applicable GST enactment in the context of an ITC dispute with the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Division XI (Panoli), Vadodara-II. The substantive outcome is not specified in the available source.

11. Chirag Traders , Thro Tarachand vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 12 November 2025
Sections engaged: 16(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The revision application (R/Criminal Revision Application No. 263 of 2008) was taken up for final hearing by consent before the Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad, against the judgment and order dated 15.02.1999 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanera in Criminal Case No. 1205 of 1994, which had convicted the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, with a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500 (in default, 1 month R.I.). Per the source preview, the conviction appeal before the Sessions Court had also been dismissed. The section-number "16(1)" here pertains to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, not a GST or income-tax provision; the substantive outcome of the revision application is not specified in the available source.

12. M/S Sri Sai Motors vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 7 November 2025
Sections engaged: 16(1), 73(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 30487 of 2025, NC: 2025:KHC:45469) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned ex parte summary order No. CTO/LGSTO-183/CB.PUR/DRC-07/3B 2A/T.22265/2023-24 dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure-A1) and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD2904240651949 dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure-A2) passed by the second respondent. Per the source preview, the petitioner is a proprietorship concern registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; the substantive outcome is not specified in the available source.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 16(1) as a cross-statute section number. Several cases in this index — Cases 1, 3, 4, and 11 — engage a provision numerically labelled "16(1)" under statutes entirely unrelated to GST or income-tax: the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, and Rajasthan agricultural marketing law. Researchers using section-number-based search tools should verify the parent statute before treating a case as GST or income-tax precedent.
Writ jurisdiction (Article 226) as the dominant procedural vehicle. The GST-related cases in this set (Cases 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12) were uniformly brought before High Courts as writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking certiorari or certiorarified mandamus to quash assessment orders or ITC-blocking notices. This reflects a well-established pattern of taxpayers invoking constitutional jurisdiction to challenge ex parte or procedurally deficient GST orders where the statutory appellate remedy is considered inadequate or where constitutional validity is directly assailed.
Ex parte orders as a recurring grievance. The source previews for Cases 9 and 12 explicitly reference ex parte orders as the subject of challenge, and Case 5 references the rejection of a taxpayer's representation on the ground of non-utilisation of opportunities. This suggests a recurring theme of taxpayers contending that they were not afforded adequate opportunity to be heard before adverse GST orders were passed.
Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) juxtaposed against Section 16(1). Case 7 (Abnco Vie Win Ent Private Limited, Bombay High Court) and Case 9 (Rajkala Enterprises Private Limited, Bombay High Court) both involve challenges that engage Sections 16(1) and 16(2)(c)/16(2)/16(4) together, with petitioners in at least Case 7 expressly framing Section 16(2)(c) as being contrary to the foundational ITC entitlement in Section 16(1). This constitutional-challenge angle is distinct from the assessment-order quashing pattern seen in the Madras and Karnataka cases.
Outcome data unavailability across all 12 cases. Every case in this compilation carries "Outcome not specified in source" as the outcome direction. Researchers must retrieve and read the full judgments — particularly in cases where the source preview is limited to the cause-title and prayer paragraphs — to determine whether the writ was admitted, dismissed, allowed, or disposed of with directions. This limitation underscores the need to use this index only as an entry point to further primary-source research.

How to use this compilation

This index is organised to help tax researchers quickly identify High Court rulings that cite or engage Section 16(1) — whether under the CGST/SGST framework or under other statutes sharing the same section number — within a defined time window. The recommended starting point is to note the parent statute (identifiable from the sections-engaged list and the court's subject-matter context) before treating any entry as a GST or income-tax authority. Cases 1, 3, 4, and 11 in this set arise under non-GST statutes and should be excluded from any GST-specific analysis.

For each GST-relevant entry, researchers should retrieve the full judgment from the relevant High Court portal (Madras HC's judis platform, Bombay HC's cause-list portal, Gujarat HC's website, or Karnataka HC's e-Courts portal) or from indiankanoon.org using the neutral citation references visible in the source previews. Because all 12 cases return "Outcome not specified in source," the preliminary relief position (whether an interim stay was granted), the final disposal direction, and any subsequent orders by a larger bench or the Supreme Court on challenge must be independently verified. CBDT circulars or CBIC instructions issued in parallel on the same ITC-eligibility questions should also be checked, as administrative guidance may affect the current enforceability of any position taken in these proceedings.

Finally, because several petitions in this set were filed under Writ Petition numbers from 2024 (Cases 7 and 9) and decided in early-to-mid 2026, researchers should confirm whether the orders have been challenged before a division bench or the Supreme Court, and whether any stay or reversal is in force. Case-law in the GST ITC space continues to evolve rapidly across High Courts, and a ruling noted as pending or admitted in one court may have been decided on merits — or rendered academic by legislative amendment or circular — by the time a researcher reads this index.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

GST Section 16(1) ITC Eligibility: 12 High Court Rulings (2025–2026)